All appeals filed by A, B, C, D and Prosecutor are dismissed.

A. Defendants A, B, C, and D’s sentence (2 years of imprisonment for Defendant A; 10 months of imprisonment for Defendant B; 1 year of imprisonment for Defendant C; and 2 years of suspended execution for Defendant D’s 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Defendant CA did not participate in the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) (Article 2 of the List of Crimes Attached to the judgment below).

B) As to the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act (the crime of crime 2016 order 370 part of the judgment below), the crime is not established merely because it did not transfer a e-mail card with the knowledge that it would be used for the crime, but allowed temporary use for loan purposes.

B. The lower court’s sentence (each sentence of Defendant A, B, C, and D is the same as the above, and Defendant E is the 10-month period of imprisonment) against the Defendants is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the part of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) by Defendant C, Defendant C, at the time of each of the above crimes, was found to have shared the actions of the above victims by either letting the victims open a cell phone with the victim M, BF, and N, and getting the victims deducted, or driving the vehicle with the vehicle with the above victims under the implied consent of the implied intent (as long as Defendant C and the other Defendants began to commit the joint attack with the other Defendants, Defendant C was not at the scene at the time of opening a cell phone.

Even if there is a criminal liability as an accomplice, according to this, Defendant C conspired with other Defendants to commit the above victims.

Since the defendant C's assertion on this part can be fully recognized, it is not accepted.

2) The term “transfer” as referred to in the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, which violates the Electronic Financial Transactions Act.